些许可控的腐败对经济有益？

    世界各国的人都意识到了腐败的问题。

    盖洛普最近的一项民意调查显示，2006-2013年期间，持有“腐败是政府内普遍现象”观念的美国人已从59%上升至79%，而另一项调查显示，219个国家中有108个国家的大部分民众都赞成这一观点。

    经济学家雅各布•斯文森对腐败的定义是：为私利而滥用公共权力。根据这一定义，我们很容易找到人们对腐败深恶痛绝的原因，因为这种行为窃取的是大家共有的资源。一旦腐败大行其道，它对社会造成的影响将是毁灭性的。在《经济展望期刊》（Journal of Economic Perspectives）上刊载的一篇论文中，斯文森就腐败对于经济的影响调查了相关文献，结果发现影响会非常严重。他写道，国家的财富与腐败程度之间是强烈的反比关系，而且腐败往往损害的是社会中最贫苦人的利益。斯文森还列举了多个近些年来恶名昭彰的类似案例。

    “据保守估计，扎伊尔前总统蒙博托•塞塞•塞科（Mobutu Sese Seko）侵吞了国库约50亿美元的资金……据称，印尼前总统默罕默德•苏哈托（Mohamed Suharto）和菲律宾前总统费迪南德•马科斯（Ferdinand Marcos）所挪用的资金是蒙博托的两倍和七倍……国际货币基金组织内部报告称，仅2001年一年，近10亿美元的石油储量或人均77美元的财富从安哥拉国库蒸发了，是安哥拉2001年收到的人道主义援助资金的三倍。然而，这个国家四分之三的民众每天的生活费都不到1美元，而且1/3的儿童都活不过5岁。”

    当然，大多数腐败都远没有达到上述的这种疯狂程度，而且有时候，腐败的出现反而会带来公正的结果。哥伦比亚大学政治中心副教授克里斯•布拉特曼（Chris Blattman）称，这也可能是经济学家们为什么没能把不同程度的腐败与经济增长率挂钩的原因。尽管腐败程度越低，财富总量就会越多，但是鲜有证据证明，腐败放缓了经济的增长步伐。布拉特曼写道：

    “为什么会出现这种情况？原因之一：大多数人都想象不出，腐败对于为经济繁荣齿轮的运转来说具有润滑剂作用。而在某些效率低下的官僚机构（意味着企业家和大公司在运输、出口或遵守相关法规方面感到很吃力），腐败可以提升效率，促进经济增长。行贿就像是计件工资或价格歧视，对于那些等待机会成本颇高的公司来说，它能带来更快或更好的服务。”

    那么这种看似良性的腐败是否也对美国有帮助呢？在《纽约客》杂志上周刊载的一篇文章中，马尔科姆•格莱德维尔认为有帮助，而且没必要将其称之为腐败。他在文章中将20世纪早期的意大利黑手党和如今城市中的有组织犯罪进行了比较。格莱德维尔认为，在整个美国历史进程中，一波又一波的移民被拒之门外，无法接触到原本可以帮助其过上体面生活的那些机制，而且一旦发生这种情况，这些群体就会诉诸于犯罪，也就是社会学家詹姆斯•欧肯所说的“扭曲的梯子”（the crooked ladder）。

    Americans, and citizens around the world, have corruption on the mind.

    A recent Gallup poll showed that from 2006 to 2013, the percentage of Americans who believe “corruption is widespread throughout the government” has increased from 59% to 79%, while a separate poll showed that majorities in 108 of 129 countries agree.

    Economist Jakob Svensson has defined corruption as the misuse of public office for private gain and, by this definition, it’s easy to see why it upsets us so much, as it constitutes a theft of resources that belong to all of us. And when corruption is widespread, it can have devastating effects on a society. In a paper published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Svensson surveys the literature on the economic effects of corruption, and they can be severe. He notes that there is a strong negative correlation between the wealth of a nation and its level of corruption, and that this corruption often harms the poorest in a society. Svensson offers several recent examples of such egregious malfeasance:

    “A conservative estimate is that the former President of Zaire, Mobutu Sese Seko, looted the treasury of some $5 billion…. The funds allegedly embezzled by the former presidents of Indonesia and Philippines, Mohamed Suharto and Ferdinand Marcos, are estimated to be two and seven times higher…. An internal IMF report found that nearly $1 billion of oil reserves, or $77 per capita, vanished from the Angolan state coffers in 2001 alone. This was about three times the value of the humanitarian aid received by Angola in 2001—in a country where three-quarters of the population survives on less than $1 a day and where one in three children die before the age of five.”

    Of course, most corruption is nowhere near as outrageous, and there are times when the presence of corruption can actually lead to just outcomes. According to Chris Blattman, an associate professor of political science at Columbia University, this might be why economists have not been able to link levels of corruption to growth rates. While overall wealth is associated with lower levels of corruption, there is very little evidence that corruption leads to slower economic growth. Writes Blattman:

    “Why might this be so? One reason: Most of us fail to imagine that corruption can also grease the wheels of prosperity. Yet in places where bureaucracies and organizations are inefficient (meaning entrepreneurs and big firms struggle to transport or export or comply with regulation), corruption could improve efficiency and growth. Bribes can act like a piece rate or price discrimination, and give faster or better service to the firms with highest opportunity cost of waiting.”

    Could this seemingly benign corruption be helpful in the U.S.? In an article in this week’s New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell, without necessarily calling it corruption, argues it could, as he compares the Italian Mafia of the early 20th century with organized crime in cities today. Gladwell argues that throughout American history, waves of immigrants were denied access to the sorts of institutions that would have enabled upward mobility, and when that happened, these groups turned to crime, what sociologist James O’Kane calls “the crooked ladder.”